64th Congress 1 SENATE -i I^o^ument 

1st Session J I No. 343 

WASHINGTON'S POLICIES OF 
NEUTRALITY AND NATIONAL DEFENSE 



ADDRESS 

DELIVERED 

BEFORE THE WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION OF 

NEW JERSEY, AT MORRISTOWN, N. J. 

ON FEBRUARY 22, 1916 



BY 



HON. HENRY CABOT LODGE 

If 

UNITED STATES SENATOR 
FROM MASSACHUSETTS 




PRESENTED BY MR. SMITH OF MICHIGAN 
February 23, 1916.— Ordered to be printed 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1916 



£"3/3 



D. of D. 
MAR 3 1916 



WASHINGTON'S POLICIES OF NEUTRALITY AND NATIONAL 

DEFENSE. 



[Address of Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge before the Washiagtou Association of New 
Jersey, at Morristown, N. J., February 22, 1916.] 



Sinct' the present century came in we have all become familiar 
with the agitation which has been carried on for the restoration of 
popular government in the LTnited States. The radiance and energy 
of this movement have been a little dimmed lately through the ab- 
sorption of the public interest in the great war, but it was very con- 
spicuous before the war began. Just where and when popular gov- 
ernment in the United States was lost has never been clearly ex- 
plained, but the method pi'oposed for its restoration was to change — 
we nnght almost say destroy — the government which Washington 
founded and which Lincoln described as "of the people, for the peo- 
ple, and by the people." When the opinions of Washington and 
Lincoln on this point were quoted we were told that Lincoln lived 50 
years ago, and Washington in a period of great antitiuity, and that 
although they were undoubtedly remarkable men in their day they 
could hardly be compared with the master minds engaged in undoing 
their work,' and, moreover, that everything had altered since they 
flourished, and that what they thought was, therefore, not now im- 
portant. This view involN^es a somewhat wide and far-reaching 
proposition which, briefly and broadly stated, amounts to saying 
that there is nothing to be learned from the past. 

I have said frequently, and I will venture to say again, that while 
I am far fi'om thinking that all wisdom died with our forefathers I am 
perfectly certain that all wisdom was not born yesterday. The 
propositions in geometry of a certain Greek named Euclid are still 
generally accepted, and the fact that they are 2,000 years old does not 
appear to impair their validity. The atomic theory put forward by 
Lucretius in his great poem, and derived by him from the Greeks of 
a much earlier time, may or may not be sound, but modern science 
has not thought it unworthy of consideration. You will indeed find 
Lucretius quoted on the first page of that very remarkable book, the 
"Men of the Old Stone Age," just publisli(>d, by Henry Fairfield 
Osborn, one of the most eminent and distinguished of the world's 
scientific men. If this can be said of ancient mathematics and of 
ancient science, branches of learning where the advances of modern 
times have been gi-eatest and most rapid, it is much more true of 
theories of government and society. Any one who will take the 
trouble to read the politics of Aristotle or the Republic of Plato will 
discover that there are very few ])hases of the relations of human 
beings associated in states and o;o v^ernments which those two great 



4 XEITTHAI.ITV AND NATIONAL DEFENSE. 

intellects had not consid'H-cd. Tf we pursue this subj<>et historieally 
we shall be interest^nl to find how very rare any new idea in govern- 
ment is, and this arises from the fact' that the chief element m gov- 
ernment is human nature, which, we may assert with reasonable con- 
fidence, is as old as humanity itself. Some of the excellent persons 
who are engaged just now in the admirabh' work of improving exist- 
ing conditions are fond of declaring that those who are skeptical 
about their panjiceas have closed their minds against new ideas. I 
think that in saying this they labor under a misapprehension. That 
there are minds shut to new ideas and which information can not 
penetrate is undoul^tcdly true, but minds of this descrii)tion are found 
quite as often among those who wish to change and reform every- 
thing ,as among those who arc incapable of movement. 

Eveiy thinking man of any age is disposed, if not eager, to welcome 
new ideas, but tlie condition of his doing so is that the idea should 
be really new as well as ])eneficial. I have read disquisitions by per- 
sons who think that every one who disagr(»es with them is a foe of 
new ideas and I hav(^ been struck very much by the fact that the 
ideas which they themselves bring forward with a great blare of 
trumpets as something wholly novel and destined to regenerate the 
world are apt to be very old. They put new dresses on them, they 
trick them out with ribbons, smooth away the wrinkles and touch the 
pallid faces with red, but they are tlie same old ideas with a long 
history of experiments and usually of more or less complete failure 
behind them. Therefore when we are dealing with (juestions which 
are not new in the history of man and in which human nature and 
the capacity of human beirigs for self-control and self-goverimient are 
largely involved, the wisdom of the greatest men of the past, who 
wej"e called upon to meet these same questions and to deal with 
identical conditions, is just as valuable to-day as when it was exer- 
cised in bygone centuries for the benefit of mankind. The fact that 
Washington had never seen an automobile or a flying machine or 
received a wireless message does not alter in the least the value of 
his judgment as to forms of government or as to the conduct of 
nations and their relations to each other. Washington was not only 
a great but a very wise man of large experience who had reflected 
much upon all these subjects. It fell to him to lead in the establish- 
ment and organization of a new governmenL and to determine some 
of its great policies when it started upon its career. He then laid 
down certain fundamental doctrines, from some of which we have 
never swerved. He was the greatest man of his time; he was im- 
mensely successful in the work which he was called upon to do, and 1 
think that from his calm wisdom we all, yes, even the youngest and 
wisest among us, can learn much to-day. The country has never 
suft'ei'ed hitherto from following Washington's leadership and counsel, 
whether in his own lifetime oi" since. In dealing with questions 
where the underlying conditions, like human nature and international 
relations, are in their essence constant, I do not think we shall 
grav^ely err if we consider his advice to-day, and I think that in many 
directions it is just as applicable now as when he was President of the 
United States. 

I do not intend to say anything of Washington's great services in 
bringing about the adoption of the Constitution or as to his general 
views of government. My purpose is merely to discuss briefly, flrst, 
the policy he adopted in our foreign relations under cncumstances 



NEUTRALITY AND NATIONAL DEFENSE. 5 

which have much resemblance to those which confront us to-day, and, 
second, a certain general rule which he laid down as essential in its 
obsei'vance to our safety and existence as a nation. Washington's 
accession to the Presidency was coincident with the beginning of the 
French Revolution, and before his first term had ended that revo- 
lution had brought on a general war in Europe. It became necessary, 
therefore, to determine what the attitude of the United States should 
be in the perilous conditions thus created. The difficulties of the 
situation were nmch enhanced by the fact that with France, one of 
the chief ])elligerents, we had a treaty of alliance and we were also 
bound to her by a strong sense of gratitude and a very reid sympathy. 
Nevertheless, Washington, after careful consideration and full dis- 
cussion with his Cabinet, determined upon a policy of strict neutrality 
and, on April 22, 1793, issued his famous neutrality proclamation. 
This action was by no means so easy or so obvious as it is to-day. 
We had just emerged from the colonial condition and for 100 years 
our peace had been involved in the peace of Europe. War in Europe 
had hitherto always meant war for the American Colonies. As 
Macaulay says in his essay upon "Frederic the Great": 

The evils i:)roduced by his wickedness were felt in lands where the name of Prussia 
was unknown; and in order that he might rob a neighbor whom he had promised to 
defend, black men fought on the coast of Coromandel and red men scalped each other 
by the Great Lakes of North America. 

Thus it came to pass inevitably that the people of the United 
States had not in 1793 grasped the idea, since habits of thought change 
very slowly, that there could be a general war in Europe fiom which 
they were to hold themselves entirely aloof. 

The situation was further complicated, as I have just said, by the 
general, intense, and very natural sympathy with 1 ranee. Not only 
had France been our ally and helped us to win our independence, 
but since then the trench, following our example, had turned from 
a despotic monarchy to a democracy. The inevitable feeling among 
the masses of the people was that we ought to be fighting on the 
side of trance and against Great Britain, with whom we had been 
so recently at war. The policy of neutrality, therefore, was far from 
popular, but Washington was determined not onl}^ to kee]:> the country 
at peace but to separate it once for all from the old idea that wars 
in Europe necessarily involved the American peoj)le. The policy 
he then laid down, and which he reiterated in his t arewell Address, 
has been the policy of the United States ever since. The Monroe 
doctrine of 30 years later was a mere corollary and extension of 
Washington's proposition that our interests and our future were 
difl'erent from those of the nations of Europe and demanded our 
separation from them. It all seems very simple now, but it was 
anything but simple then, and the declaration of neutrality was only 
the first ste]) upon a path beset with difhculties and dangers. Wash- 
ington was not a phrase maker. "Wlien, after deep and anxious 
consideration, he laid down the policy of neutrality he did so with 
the complete determination to carry it out rigidly. WTien he declared 
the country to be neutral he meant that it really should be a neutral 
and hi that capacity shouhl not only insist on every neutral right 
but should also perform all neutral duties. The policy was soon 
brought to a sharj) test by the acts of Genet, minister of the French 
Republic, who endeavored in various ways to use the TTnited States 
as a base of supplies for naval operations against England. Wa?h- 



6 NF.UTRALITY AND XATIONAI, DEFENSE. 

ingtoii endured Genet's performances, with tlie large patience so 
characteristic of hini always, until a ])oint was reached when for- 
hearance ceased to be a virtue and inaction would have made the 
])olicy of neutrality seem at once false and a})surd. He therefore 
demanded Genet's recall. 

In this action in regard to Genet, Washington was fulfilling the 
duties of a neutral. Let us now see how he dealt with a great ques- 
tion of neutral rights. The c^uestion arose as to the export of arms 
and munitions oi war and their sale to belligerents. Washington 
himself made no specific utterance, ])ut he spoke through his admin- 
istration. On the 15th of May, 1793; shortly after the proclamation 
of neutrality, Mr. Jefferson, then Secretary of State, wrote as follows 
to the British minister : 

Our citizens have been always free to make, vend, and export arms, ft is the 
constant occupation and livelihood of some of them. To suppress their callings, the 
only means perhaps of their subsistence, because a war exists in foreign and distant 
couiatries, in which we have no concern, would scarcely be expected. It would be 
hard in principle and impossible in practice. The law of nations, therefore, respect- 
ing the rights of those at peace, does not require from them such an internal disarrange- 
ment of their occupations. It is satisfied with the external penalty pronounced in 
the President's proclamation, that of confiscation of such portion of these arms as shall 
fall into the hands of any of the belligerent powers on their way to the ports of their 
enemies. To this penalty our citizens are warned that they will be abandoned, and 
that even private contraventions may work no inequality between the parties at war, 
the benefit of them will be left equally free and open to all. 

On August 4 of the same year Hamilton, in a Treasury circular, 
stated the same proposition in his own concise and lucid way : 

The purchasing within and exporting from the United States, by way of merchan- 
dise, articles commonly called contraband, being generally warlike instruments and 
military stores, is free to all the parties at war, and is not to be interfered with. 

Hamilton had a large part in framing the neutrality policy and, like 
Jefferson, he expressed the views of the President and of the admin- 
istration. At a later date, in 1796, Mr. Lee, the Attorney General, 
again expressed the opinion of the administration as to the purchase 
of arms and munitions of war from a neutral. He said: 

Belligerents may come into the territory of a neutral nation and there purchase and 
remove any article whatsoever, even munitions of war, unless the right be denied by 
express statute. If, however, the object of such an act be to impede the operations of 
either belligerent power and to favor the other it is a violation of neutrality. 

At about the same time, on the 25th of May, 1796, Timothy Pick- 
ering, then Secretary of State, in reply to Mr. Adet, who had pro- 
tested against the siile of contraband of war to Great Britain, again 
stated the views of Washington's administration in the following 
language : 

In both the sections cited (110 and 113, Vattel) the right of neutrals to trade in arti- 
cles contraband of war is clearly established; in the first, by selling to the warring 
powers who come to the neutral country to buy them; in the second, by the neutral 
subjects or citizens carrying them to the countries of the powers at war and there 
selling them. 

Nothing could be clearer, as these citations show, than the view of 
Washington's administration and of Hamilton and Jefferson as to the 
undoubted right of tfie citizens or subj(H'ts of a neutral power to sell 
arms and other munitions of war at their own risk to belligerents. 
The doctrine and the policy thus laid down by Washington's adminis- 
tration have been strictly adhered to by the United States from that 
day to this. Chancellor Kent, whose authority is the very highest, 
says in his Commentaries (1 Kent's Comm. 142): 



NEUTRALITY AND NATIONAL DEFENSE. 7 

It was contended on the part of the French Nation, in 1796, that neutral governments 
were bound to restrain their subjects from selling or exporting articles contraband of 
war to the belligerent powers. But it was successfully shown, on the part of the 
United States, that neutrals may lawfully sell, at home, to a belligerent purchaser, 
or carry, themselves, to the belligerent powers, contraband articles subject to the 
right of seizure in transitu. This right has since been explicitly declared by the judi- 
cial authorities of this country. The right of the neutral to transport, and of the 
hostile power to seize, are conflicting rights, and neither party can charge the other 
with a criminal act. 

The case referred to by Chancellor Kent was the SantissiTna 
Trinidad (7th Wheaton, 283). Judge Story, m delivering the 
opinion of the court, said: 

But there is nothing in our laws, or in the law of nations, that forbids our citizens 
from sending armed vessels, as well as munitions of war, to foreign ports for sale. It 
is a commercial adventure which no nation is bound to prohibit; and which only 
exposes the persons engaged in it to the penalty of confiscation. 

Thus it will be seen that the position taken by the Washington 
administration has been sustained by the Supreme Court and by the 
great authority of Chancellor Kent. It has been the unbroken, 
polic^f of our Government ever since Washington declared it. It is 
the American doctrine, and this American doctrine as to the export 
of arms and munitions of war from a neutral country was embodied 
in Article VII of the Hague Convention, which says : 

A neutral power is not called upon to prevent the export or transport, on behalf of 
one or other of the belligerents, of arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything 
which can be of use to an army or a fleet. 

When Genet was recalled and this position was taken as to the ex- 
port of arms and munitions of war our new Government had just been 
established; its success was uncertain. We were poor and still strug- 
gling with the burdens left by the Revolution. With a large portion of 
the American people any act unfavorable to France was extremely un- 
popular, but Washington did not hesitate. He had declared the coun- 
try to be neutral and he meant it to be so. To Washington nothing 
Wtis more repulsive than bluster or fine language or large phrases which 
sounded well and meant nothing. His words were sim]3le but the deed 
was always l:»ehind the words. He had measured accurately all the 
responsibilities which the policy of neutrality can'ied with it. He 
knew what he meant to do and when the time came to enforce 
neutrality, vindicate the honor of the country and support its dec- 
larations, he did not hesitate. He undoul)tedly regretted that the 
]ieople of the United States did not all understand the question and 
feel al)Out it as he did, but groups of dissatisfied voters had no terrors 
for hmi when he had made up his mind to the performance of a great 
duty, as he conceived it. He succeeded in steering the new-born 
nation of which he was the head through the raging seas of the wars 
succeeding the trench Revolution. Under his successor it became 
necessary to face one of the belligerents in arms, going to the very 
verge of declared war, but the Government did not falter and peace 
was the result. I have not attempted to enter into the details of 
Washington's neutrality policy. They may be read in all our 
histories and may, I think, be studied with advantage at this moment. 
My sole purpose was to call attention to the policy which Washington 
then laid down of separating the United States from the policies of 
Europe and establishuig in this respect a system of our own and 
especially to emphasize the manner in which he enforced neutrality 
both in its rights and its duties. The other important point to be 



8 NEUTRALITY AND NATIONAL DEFENSE. 

remember('<l is that wlicii he announced that policy and founded 
that system he did it with a full realization of its dangers and difh- 
culties and with a complete intention of carrying it out. He was 
emphatically a man of action, and he never came to a momentous 
decision, either in peace or war, where he was not prepared to act 
as circumstances demanded. "Wlien we celebrate Washington's 
Bhthda}' it is well that we should consider what he did and see 
whether from his grave wisdom and his perfect courage there are 
not lessons to be learned, and whether he does not offer an example 
to ])e followed, for wisdom, courage, and ])ure patriotism can never 
be out of fashion. 

The other great policy of Washington which seems to have most 
immediate connection with our own times was set forth at the very 
beginnmg of his fulministration, and was by him regarded as essential 
to the safety, the success, and the future of the ITnited States. In 
his speech to the Congress on the Sth of January, 1790, he said: 

Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention, that o 
providing for the corainon defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared fo'' 
war is one of the most effectual means of j^reserving peace. 

A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined ; to which end a uniform 
and ,vell digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they 
should promote such manufactories as tend to render them inde])endent of others 
for essential, particularly military, supplies. 

In this message occurs the sentence, so often quoted, that to be 
prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preservmg 
peace. It ought always to be read \\ath the succeedmg sentence, 
which is not constantly quoted, but which is of almost equal weight 
and value, now as then. We should never forget that Washmgton 
laid it down as a fundamental rule that "a free people ought not 
only to be armed, but disciplined." He demanded a well digested 
plan of defense and am]:)le provision for the manufacture of muni- 
tions of war by "promoting such manufacture.'' He saw nothing 
incompatible with a love of peace in preparation for war. On the 
contrary, he knew that such love could never be gratified except 
by intelUgent and large preparation for war m defense of the country. 
The democracy of Wasliington was not to l)uy its way to safety b}'' 
gold, still less by the surrender of its rights, but was to assure and 
make real its ideal of peace by "arms and discipline.'' 

x\gain, on December 3, 1793, he said to Congress: 

If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure- 
peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known 
that we are at all times ready for war. 

"If we desire to repel insult''; how strange that must sound in 
certain ears to-day. There is no nobler figure, no finer character in 
history than George Washington, and he believed that an independ- 
ent nation ought to be ready to re])el insult. Noisy voices of 
late years have scoft'ed and scorned "national honor." Washington 
was as sensitive about his nation's honor as about his own. He was 
right about many things. Perhaps he was right about this. Who 
"knows? There are many views about the conduct of life. This was 
the view of Washington. Then he re]>eats that readiness for war is 
the security of peace. The thought indeed was often in his mini) 
and in varying forms was expressed by him in liis letters. It was 
not a new thought, of which Washington himself was no doubt quite 
aware. 



NEUTRALITY AND NATIONAL DEFENSE. 9 

Indeed, if you will turn to youi' "Familiar Quotations" you will 
see that Horace said: 

In pace, ut sapiens, aptarit idonea bello, 

and when Horace wrote his terse line he simply expressed what was prob- 
ably a commonplace in the days of Augustus. But the fact that the 
doctrine represented the general opinion of the wisest men of all times 
only adds weight to Washington's advice. We have followed Wash- 
ington's counsels in many directions, but never in this one, and we 
have paid heavily in the past for not doing so. In the War of 1812 
we raised, first and last and in various ways, half a million of men, 
largely untrained and unprepared, and yet a small body of British 
regidars marched almost unopposed to the city of Washington and 
burned the Capitol. In the same war, although we had no sufficient 
Navy, we won a series of remarkable frigate victories, as well as the 
actions on the Lakes, because our little force, such as it was, was of 
the very best, well officered, well manned, and thorouglily prepared. 
Wliat the utter absence of preparation cost the United States at the 
time of the Civil War it is impossible even to guess, but if in 1861 
we had possessed a well-equipped Regular Army of 100,000 men, there 
are good judges who think that the Civil War would have been checked 
at its very inception. 

The vital, li^dng interest in Washington's declaration is that it meets 
so exactly the opposition to proper national defense which we are 
encountering to-day. The chief argument of the extreme pacificists 
is that a well-prepared national defense is an incentive to war. 
This Washington regarded as false. He puts his demand for pre- 
paredness on the ground that it will preserve peace, and no man 
ever lived more anxious for the preservation of peace than George 
Washington. It was the cardinal policy of his administration. 
He believed profoundly that the success of the new Government 
depended on the maintenance of peace. He felt that time must 
be given for the cement which held the fabric of the United States 
'together to harden. He knew, no one better, how frail the bonds 
were when the great experiment of a Union of States under one gov- 
ernment was attempted. He knew our weaknesses; no one so well. 
He had led us through seven years of war to victory and independ- 
ence, and he knew by the bitterest experience that one of the greatest 
obstacles which he had to meet in that long and trying conflict was 
the utter inefficiency of the Congress in dealing with the war. He 
had suffered from their refusal to do what was necessary. He had 
not forgotten that on the very eve of Yorktown, when the final 
victory was just coming within his grasp. Congress had proposed to 
reduce the Army. No man could have been more convinced than 
he of the need of peace for the United States after the adoption of the 
Constitution. To preserve that peace he sacrificed the French alli- 
ance in order to make a treaty with England which dispelled the 
danger of war and brought about the withdrawal of the Britisli from 
the western posts, thus removing a constant menace and opening the 
gates to the westward movement of the American people. Yet this 
devoted friend and upholder of peace, who had made such sacrifices 
and incurred so much unpopularity in niaintaining it, told his people 
with grave emphasis that preparation for war was the surest way of 
preserving peace. He knew that nothing was more shallow than the 
argument that the possession of an ample national defense was an 



ip NEUTRALITY AND NATIONAL DEFENSE. 

incentive to war. Ho was certain that it was just the reverse. He 
knew that armaments in themselves did not mean peace or war, but 
that it was the purpose of the armament which determined its results. 
No man understood more thoroughly than Washington that arma- 
ments designed for conquest were a means of conquest, and that 
armaments designed purely for national defense were the greatest 
assurance of peace. To his clear mind, free from all illusions and 
looking facts straight in the face, it was plain heyond dispute that 
a weak and undefended nation offered a temptation to other nations 
fuliy armed and seeking the spoils of war. Therefore this great lover of 
peace wished to assure peace, so far as it could he assured, by thorough 
preparation for a national defense which would be notice to all the 
world that we could not be attacked with impunity. In those days 
we were weak and poor: now we are rich and powerful, with a great 
population, but our vast m.aterial prosperity makes us, when unde- 
fended, more tempting to attack than ever before in our history. 

We celel)rate annually the birthday of Washington that we may 
do honor not only to him for what he did, but for what he was. If 
we really honor his memory we must not disregard his counsels. 
That pure patriotism, that broad outlook upon life, that grave wis- 
dom, should be just as powerful with us to-day as when he took the 
Presidency of the United States. From neglecting his advice as to 
national defense we have suffered sorely in the past. Never in our 
history was that advice more pertinent than at this moment. We 
shall clo well to follow the counsels of Washington rather than the 
unthinking babble of those who dwell in a world of illusions, and, 
unlike Washington, have never in then- lives looked facts in the iaco 
and never have wandered beyond the range of pohce protection. 

The peoi)le who mistake the frail conventions of civilization for 
the reahties of human existence, who wholly fail to realize that domes- 
tic peace and law and order rest on the organized force of the com- 
munity are dangerous guides to trust or follow. They are like chil- 
dren playing on the glittering surface of a frozen river, unconscious 
of the waters beneath. They seem incapable of comprehendmg 
that when the ice goes all that holds the stream then rismg m flood 
are the bridges and embankments which the i:)Ower of man has erected. 
They are blind to the fact that if the dikes, which represent the force 
of the community, betrayed and weakened l)y neglect, shall break, the 
dark and rushing waves of the fierce torrent of hmnan passions, oi 
lawlessness, violence, and crime will sweep over the fair iields 
reclaimed by the slow labors of civilization and leave desolation and 
ruin in their track. With them the wise words of Horace — wise 
despite the fact that he lived 2,000 years ago— fall u]M)n deaf ears. 
I will venture to quote them: 

Jura inventa metu injusti fateare uecesse est, 
Tempora si fastosque velis evolvere mundi. 

Th(^y would do well to cgiik' out from the mists of large language 
in which they wander and learn from history, as Horace had learned, 
that most rights are the creation and offspring of prevented wTongs, 
and then sit down and consider just what that fact means. It is a 
fact well worthy of thought, for it lies deep at the very roots of things. 
Whence came '' rights, ' ' as we call them ? They are not natural forces 
like the tides of the ocean or the mysterious electric currents which 
glide invisible about this ])endent world. They are not born with us 
fikc the color of our eyes or the shape of our skulls. They are the 



XEUTRALITV AND NATIONAL DEFENSE. 11 

work of man. Consider a moment. Each of us has the right to pass 
along the road unmolested. It was not always so. In distant days 
a man could only go up and down on the earth if physically able to 
])rotect himself. In the slow ])rocess of the years the community 
stepped in and declared that interference with an innocent traveler 
was a wrong and must be prevented. The wrong prevented, the 
right came. Let the advocates of peace at any price, let the pacifists, 
consider this. Force, and force alone, gives to them, as to all of 
us, the right of free speech. Withdraw the force that prevents the 
wrong and the right would disap])ear. It rests on the prevention of 
wrong and nothing else. As it is with the rights of the individual, 
so it is with the rights of nations. Fail in preparing the force to pre- 
vent wrong, invasion, and outrage and the right of the nation to 
peace and security, to live its own life and work out its own destiny, 
would vanish like the mists of the morning before the rising sun. 

It has apparently become a commendable fashion of late to quote 
from the Bible in this discussion of national defense. Let me imitate, 
in connection with the believers in an unprotected peace bought at 
any price, those who have called our attention to Ezekiel and ask you 
to recall the words of the prophet Jeremiah: 

'^ 
Tlien said I, Ah, Lord GodI behold, the prophets say unto them, ^ i' shall not see 

the sword, neither shall ye have famine; bnt T will give you assured peace in this 

■[)lace. 

Then tlie Lord said unto me. The prophets' ])rophesy lies in my name; I sent them 
not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake I unto them; they prophesy 
unto yoTi a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and tlie deceit of their 
lieart. 

Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning the prophets that prophesy in my name, 
and I sent them not, yet they say. Sword and famine shall not be in this land; by 
sword and famine shall those prophets l)e consumed. 

There is, however, much more here than the concrete question of 
national defense, vital as that question is. The opposition of those 
who, like Washuigton, would have the Nation's defense always ready 
and prepared, to those who directly or indirectly resist any such prep- 
aration, involves a complete and radical difference as to the true 
conception of life and duty. When I was a boy we used to declaim 
at school a speech which ended in this way: 

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? 
Forbid it. Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, 
give me liberty or give me death. 

I dare say that boys are no longer permitted to recite that speech 
or sundry others by the same orator; that they may be regarded in 
certain quarters as containing improper ideas for a child to acquire. 
They certainly would not harmonize with the lofty and inspiring 
aspirations of those who like the song, ''I did not raise my boy to be 
a soldier." But in my day the thought and the sentiment which 
Patrick Henry expressed with stormy eloquence were accepted as 
tniisms, as declarations of duty which no one questioned. We also 
\isef] to recite a speech which ran in this way: 

How beautiftil is death, when earned by virtue! 
Who would not be that youth? What pity is it 
That we can die but once to serve our country! 
Why sits this sadness on yom- brows my friends?, 
I should have blushed if Cato's house had stood 
Secure, and flourished in a civil war. 
Portiiis, behold thy brother, and remember 
Thy life is not thine own, when Rome demands it. 



12 NEUTRALITY AND JSATIUJSAL UEi?E:S6E. 

That was the eighteenth century conception of life and duty, as 
expressed by Addison, and it was the conception of Washington. 
That same conception of life and duty came down unbroken to the 
time of the Civil War. That which the schoolboys declaimed the 
men who saved the Union put into action. This conception, held 
by Washington and Lincoln and by the men both North and South, 
who died in battle, was a very simple one. It was merely that there 
was something more precious than life, comfort, safety, money 
making, prosperity. It probably never dawned on the mind of 
Washington that anyone but a coward could question that there 
were certain duties to the country, to right and to humanity, which 
made the brief life which is here our portion as dust in the balance. 
I have no doubt that, once awakened, this same conception would 
be dominant among the American people now as it always has been 
in the past and as it is at this moment with the nations across the 
water who are fighting for national existence, for aU that they hold 
dearer than life. But the other doctrine, that the short and uncer- 
tain life wliich is given to us on earth is to be preserved at all hazards, 
even if its preservation involves becoming a tributary and subject 
nation, and that there is nothing for which life and comfort ought 
to be sacrificed, is widely and loudly preached. 

To the proclamation of this doctrine great millionaires who think 
the accmnulation of money is the chief end of man, have given 
uncounted sums. It is a doctrine which, if successful, would destroy 
the soul of any people and would turn them into helpless degenerates, 
the ready victims of stronger and more manly races. Every sen- 
sible man, every humane man and woman hates war and, alas, we 
know only too weU what the horrors of war are. We all wish peace 
to be maintained. We earnestly desire to see international law 
restored and enforced, but that is a very different thing from the 
acceptance of the doctrine that there is nothing for which life should 
be sacrificed. Between the conception of life which puts money and 
personal, physical safety first, and the conception of life held by 
Washington and Lincoln and those whom they led, which put freedom, 
honor, and self-respect first, the choice must be made. The great- 
ness of a people is to be found not in the amount of money which 
can be accumulated, or in the ease and softness which can be wrapped 
about hfe, but in what a people stands for in morals and in char- 
acter. On this day of all others it seems to me that we should re- 
member the conception of life and duty held by Washington. The 
men of his day who were for peace at any price frankly because they 
were afraid and cared more for money than aught else are forgotten, 
but the name of Washington is enshrined and reverenced m the 
memory of all nations. Let us not depart from his teachings or from 
his high conception of man's duty and the conduct of life. Let us 
apply that conception now and put it into action without fear or 
favor. 

O 



5? w 




















•- '-^^0^ :c 







V.#' 
























-n^-o^ 






jP-t!, 










. »* <0 






















^" /^«'. ^-^ J-" .*>^% ""^ 



"oV 



^J^Q 



K ^^--^^ 






.^^"^ 





^ t^k*' 



,♦ „ « « <*. 









y 








'• %/ • 




















^Ad^ 



r ;. 






raniviu 









